Leonardo modelled the twelve apostles on the twelve constellations of the zodiac, around Jesus Christ as the sun.

Examine the positions of the hands of each apostle and compare them to the diagram of the constellation below, in order of the twelve heads across.

Aries: three visible stars with long line and short line joined at angle of 150 degreesTaurus: One hand forms the Hyades around Aldebaran, the other hand forms the PleiadesGemini: Two arms ending in the twins Castor and PolluxCancer: Hands to the heart as a crabLeo: left hand cupped like lions head, right hand stretched out as tail (Denebola)Virgo: single hand similar to shape of stars

The Sun: Jesus Christ

Libra: two hands together in balanceScorpio: Peter as exact match to shape of scorpion with arm as body and sword as stingSagittarius: arms and hands closely match starsCapricorn: two hands and head form triangleAquarius: arms and hands exact match to stars, with left arm stretched out Pisces: arms and hands exact match to two lines of the fishes joined by knot at shoulder

Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" is considered to be one of the most important paintings in the history of art. A less well known fact is that Leonardo had intensively studied a variety of mystic and spiritual teachings and that the twelve apostles are a symbolic portrayal of the twelve signs of the zodiac.The apostle on the far right of the painting is Simon who stands for Aries, the first sign of Aries. The distinctive head and dynamically gesturing hands pointing to his left clearly illustrate this fact.Thaddeus, the apostle immediately to Simon's left, symbolises Taurus. The powerful "Taurean neck" coupled with his hands which he is pointing at his own physical body are a testament to this.Next comes Matthew who represents the sign of Gemini. The head and hands point in different directions, symbolising the open and often sometimes indecisive energy of Gemini.After Matthew comes Philip who stands for the sign of Cancer, symbolised by his gentle, soft and vulnerable appearance which is the most feminine of all the apostles.Next comes James, son of Zebedee, who stands for the sign of Leo. He has an air of certainty which is indicated, among other things, by his confidently outstretched hands.Barely noticeable behind James is doubting Thomas, symbol for the modest sign of Virgo. When Virgo does say something it tends to be in a critical or questioning manner, as illustrated by his raised index finger.Continuing on the other side of Jesus we find John, his favourite apostle who unmistakably stands for the sign of Libra. His whole character expresses a longing for love and harmony.He stands in stark contrast to Judas, betrayer of Jesus. His dark, grim expression stands for the energy of Scorpio, the sign of death and transformation.The next apostle is Peter, the Sagittarian among the apostles. He appears to be dynamic and energetic, but in a rather chaotic sense and not as focused as Aries as symbolised by Simon.Next to him sits Andrew, who represents the sign of Capricorn. He seems rather aloof but at the same time clear and decisive. His hands are raised in a gesture that clearly indicates where his own boundaries are which makes the most steadfast impression of all the apostles.The next disciple to his left is James, son of Alphaeus, who is the Aquarian among the disciples. He has physical contact with both Andrew and Peter, symbolising the Aquarian ideal of contact with like-minded people.The last apostle is Bartholomew, who represents Pisces, the sign that completes the zodiac. He seems to be observing the proceedings with an air of equanimity without really being involved. It is also an interesting to note that his are the only visible feet in the whole painting. Feet are associated with Pisces. In the middle of the painting sits Jesus, the Sun around which everything revolves.The Last Supper is not the only example of deep esoteric symbolism in great works of art. It may not be presumptuous to state that only those with an understanding of astrology and other esoteric disciplines are in a position to truly appreciate great historic works of art.

Last edited by Robert Tulip on Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:57 am, edited 3 times in total.

Scriptural interpretation based on allegory is strongly frowned on because it leads to precisely this type of nonsense. When allegory is used, you can make the Bible mean anything one wants and when it can mean anyting one wants, it means nothing. My interpretation is as valid as yours which contradicts a third parties, etc., etc.

Stahrwe, you are as thick as two planks. Clearly you did not read my post with any attention but jumped to your usual preconceived idiot dogmatic slander. I should have posted this in the atheist forum. I hear you saying "Oh its different from my precious fossil Jesus fable so it must be nonsense." You have no morality whatsoever if you can think something so completely objectively wrong. Maybe your earlier claim to be blind is true (despite high scores on booktalk games)? You have obviously not been able to compare the hand positions in the painting to the star maps below them as I explain in simple language above.

Allegory does not allow a free for all. It proves here that Leonardo da Vinci encoded the zodiac in the Last Supper. If you can't see what someone is talking about it is the height of rudeness to dismiss it.

Stahrwe, you are as thick as two planks. Clearly you did not read my post with any attention but jumped to your usual preconceived idiot dogmatic slander.

To be slander what I say must:Be false at the time I posted it.I must know that it was false at the time I posted it.I must have posted it with malicous intent.And someone must be shown to have been damaged by it.

Since you don't cite the author, and since the url merely leads to an anonymous Wikipage, no person has been harmed. Is this reproduced from Murdock, TBK or Freethoughtnation.com?

Robert Tulip wrote:

I should have posted this in the atheist forum.

Had you done so I would have objected that it is did not belong there and should be under Belief, Religion, etc.

robert tulip wrote:

I hear you saying "Oh its different from my precious fossil Jesus fable so it must be nonsense."

Hallucinations do not only take the form of visual but, and the evidence is overwhelming that the most common form of hallucination is audible ergo, you hearing things when I am not there and I would not say. As proof that it is a hallucination I state that I have no idea what 'fossil Jesus fable' is.

robert tulip wrote:

You have no morality whatsoever if you can think something so completely objectively wrong.

I think you meant, 'something so completely objective' to which I respond that it is completely subjective. Is there anyting in LD's writings where he establishes the relation to the zodiac you report?

robert tulip wrote:

Maybe your earlier claim to be blind is true (despite high scores on booktalk games)?

Perhaps the force was with me. On the other hand, I never claimed to be blind did I?

Robert tulip wrote:

You have obviously not been able to compare the hand positions in the painting to the star maps below them as I explain in simple language above.

I did and got no correlation, whatsover.

robert tulip wrote:

Allegory does not allow a free for all. It proves here that Leonardo da Vinci encoded the zodiac in the Last Supper. If you can't see what someone is talking about it is the height of rudeness to dismiss it.

I see what you are talking about and it is not supported. One could come up with many different interpretations. Show us LD's explanation support you article and I will grant it to you.

It is my original work. Your description of it as nonsense is a slander against me.

For the "Stahrwe is blind" discussion see his question "What would you say if I told you I was blind?" at post82953.html#p82953 followed by much nauseating disruption of an otherwise sensible thread as per the ongoing trolling agenda. However, that is off topic for this thread, and I request that if people want to talk about it they start a new thread.

I would welcome substantive comments and questions on the opening post.

An opinion is not slanderous. It is called free speech and despite your efforts, it still exists at BookTalk.

When an opinion is false, baseless, reckless and derogatory it is slander. You are just lucky that Booktalk tolerates such conduct.

Quote:

You need to be accurate and honest in your responses, another reason to include precise quotes, it limits wiggle room. For example see what you said in your response above.My exact words were, "Where did I say I was blind?"

You went on then after your post that I just linked to give the clear impression that you are blind by talking about use of reading software for the blind. That may be why everyone here is so full of tender compassion towards you. Your comments here compound the impression that you suffer from an intense lack of vision. I am sorry for you.

For those who are too blind to join the dots in the opening post I will provide more detailed drawings to show Leonardo must have used the zodiac as his template for the twelve apostles. This is the real Da Vinci Code. It shows Leonardo's secret continuity with the ancient tradition, cited in the main reputable Bible commentaries such as for example those of G.B. Caird and William Barclay (and I think Peake's), linking the Biblical use of the number twelve, for example the twelve jewels of the holy city, with both the twelve signs of the zodiac and the twelve tribes of Israel. Dogmatic bigots find this insufferable because they insist God is a purely supernatural superstition rather than an allegory for natural reality.

Last edited by Robert Tulip on Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Technically, written material would be libel and not slander except that my 'nonsense' reference was to a post and not to a person. A post cannot be slandered or libeled but a person can. Now, if I had referred to you as 'retarded', as some on BT have me, or if I compared you to a moronic cartoon character like Boofhead, that might constitute libel. Do you understand?

robert tulip wrote:

]You went on then after your post that I just linked to give the clear impression that you are blind by talking about use of reading software for the blind. That may be why everyone here is so full of tender compassion towards you. Your comments here compound the impression that you suffer from an intense lack of vision. I am sorry for you.

[/quote]

My suggestion of using aids was another hypothetical in response to an inquiry as to how a blind person would participate in discussions but not videos. Again, if you read the discussion I never said I was blind. Perhaps you are reading things into my statements just as you do DaVinci's works. You once stated that when you read an acient text, you try to determine what the text really means. That violates a cardinal rule of hermeneutics, that when plain sense makes sense, that is the only interpretation necessary.

I will say that I once was blind just as John Newton wrote, so in that case, what I said was accurate was it not?

robert tulip wrote:

This is the real Da Vinci Code. It shows Leonardo's secret continuity with the ancient tradition, cited in the main reputable Bible commentaries such as for example those of G.B. Caird and William Barclay (and I think Peake's), linking the Biblical use of the number twelve, for example the twelve jewels of the holy city, with both the twelve signs of the zodiac and the twelve tribes of Israel.

[/quote][/quote]

You mention Caird, Barclay and Peakes, how about citin the refeences in those works which show that the disciples represent the zodiac? Or, more to the point, how about showing it from the Bible?

BTW, I like the two to the right of Jesus in the picture for Gemini. The fact that you see two heads but only one body suggests twins to me, fraternal, perhaps conjoined, but twins.

Are you under the impression that the disciples are from each of the twelve tribes?

From right to left in the painting of The Last Supper we see the twelve apostles are modelled on the shape of the stars of the twelve signs of the zodiac. The secret purpose is to encode in the greatest work of western art the ultimate truth that Christ is the Sun and the twelve apostles are the divisions of the year into twelve months. Here I focus in on the parts of the picture that match the stars, with each apostle shown to match his sign, much as the ancients put their mythical heros into the constellations.

I had a good look at the image and I think the physical geometry of the star maps fits very well indeed with the postures and arm positions of the figures in the painting. Particularly close matches are evident for Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Scorpio (what a beauty!!), Aquarius and Pisces....

I also read through your exchanges with The Blind One on booktalk.... Made me laugh outloud numerous times. Keep it up!

As far as I am aware this precise mapping is a new finding, although as I note above the match between the twelve apostles and the zodiac has long been known. What this stellar comparison provides is a precise and detailed explanation of the real 'Da Vinci Code'. We can see that Leonardo secretly understood that the story of Jesus and the twelve was cosmic allegory for the sun and the twelve signs of the zodiac. He concealed this understanding in his greatest painting in a way that is incontrovertible once the key is found, as I show in the attached diagrams.

This proof that astrology is embedded at the heart of Christianity is important for the objective basis of astrology. We are used to regarding astrology and Christianity as mutually antagonistic, but this material, and the abundant similar evidence that the Biblical twelve is always a natural cosmic reference to the zodiac, enables us to put faith on a natural rather than a supernatural footing.

I believe, and this may be completely out of line, that there is a pattern to the universe. Many religions, philosophies, and belief systems are based on finding the truth. If all are examined at length and we find a common thread, then what we find must be the truth. I do not doubt that Leo would hide the zodiac in a christian based painting. He was a scholar and as such was not limited by the narrow mindedness of zeal.

_________________Win if you can. Lose if you must. Cheat at all costs.

I'm probably being dense, but I just don't see the zodiac patterns in the Da Vinci painting. I don't doubt that the number 12 had some cosmic significance at one time, I just don't see them in the painting. If, indeed, Da Vinci modelled the twelve apostles on the twelve constellations of the zodiac, he was rather covert about it. I suppose that's the point: the true meaning of Christianity had to be kept hidden from the Romans? I'm skeptical about this premise, as you know, Robert, and to me you have to work pretty hard to see the zodiac in the painting. Am I the only one?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!